Multi Crew Pilot Licence (MCL)
 

Picked up a copy of Flyer today and spotted at article about the 'proposed' ICAO Co-Pilot licence. is this something a new wannabe needs to be concerned about? The author seemed to believe that it might be in force by 2005, which may have implications for my training.

Apparently under the new proposals only 50 hours would be actual flying, the rest being done in the sim, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Laters dudes :)

I remember reading something about this a while ago. I think at the time it was being proposed as a "zero flight time" licence. Airlines would be the primary source of this training for their own cadet students and all training would be based on Level D (?) simulators.

Effectively it would produce a type rated first officer with a type specific IR who would not need to go through the current system of Single Engine Piston/Multi Engine Piston training. I was under the impression that the plan had been shelved.

If is the case that it will be available by 2005, time for someone to pass me the revolver....

:yuk: :{ :{ :sad:

Seems ideal for airlines... MCC training emphasised, so less of that for airlines to pay for.

I just wonder whether the finished product will have any other options whilst waiting for the airline position the training has prepared him/her for - i.e. will this licence produce a pilot capable of air taxi, banner towing, parachutist dropping, aerial work, etc to the same level that the traditional CPL/IR/ATPL system does?

Without details - perhaps I shouldn´t comment untill there are more details... - it appears that this system is another way of airlines having a heap of ready and waiting potential pilots unable to be employed as anything else. Captive markets allowing companies to dictate job terms more? I´m sure it´s not all so doom and gloom though. Has anyone more details?

More importantly, when the **** hits the fan, would they be able to actualy fly the damned aeroplane with skill? Remember Gimli (no, not the dwark in the Lord of the Rings, the forced landing site of a Boeing glider).

"Co pilot licence"
 

There was a proposal a year or so ago, about this new style of course. A small amount of flying to PPL standard followed by state of the art simulator, with then specific type rating course - Airbus? - straight into the right hand seat, but not qualified for SP commerical operarations.

Cheaper option than the present JAR licence course.

Did this ever get of the ground [no pun intended] and if so which JAR/EU FTOs are offering it??

:hmm:

MPL - 2007
 

from

http://www.swiss-aviation-training.c...newsletter.htm

The new Multi-crew Pilot's License (MPL) - what’s it all about?

Gallus Bammert is a ground instructor for Swiss AviationTraining Ltd. in Zurich, and is a qualified representative of both JAA and ICAO. In the following question-and-answer session, Bammert explains what the new Multi-crew Pilot’s License (MPL) is, the reasoning behind it, and comments on its effect.

What exactly is meant by Multi-crew Pilot’s License?
The MPL will be a new pilot’s licence that will be issued to ab-initio students after completion of a pilot training course in a multi-crew cockpit. According to the ICAO, it will be possible to train pilots for an MPL from the year 2007.

Where are the provisions for the MPL training defined?
As with other pilot’s licences, the MPL requirements are listed in a document called “Personnel Licensing” which is published by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), whose membership includes every country on earth except the Vatican.

What prompted the ICAO to develop the MPL training?
In today’s courses a lot of time is devoted to pilot-in-command training in a single-pilot cockpit, for which the demand is small, and getting smaller. Since most students are planning anyway to work in a multi-crew cockpit, the MPL will offer them direct access to this kind of work.

Will current training be replaced or limited by the MPL?
No. But there might well be some changes in 2007, regardless of the MPL, because all licence requirements and authorizations will also be revised. Current regulations date all the way back to1948, and fundamental changes have taken place in aviation since then.

If the holder of an MPL is trained exclusively for multi-crew cockpits, does this mean that he or she will not be allowed to work in a single-pilot cockpit?
No, but further training will be required in order to qualify for other licences.

Does the MPL replace another licence?
No. It is a completely new kind of training, and a licence in its own right.

What are the advantages of the MPL?
The decisive advantage is the fact that MPL students are better prepared for their real-life tasks. Another advantage is that the MPL pilot-to-be will have all the qualifications – Licence and Type Rating – needed to be a co-pilot. And incidentally, because they spend more hours on the simulator than in the aircraft, students waste less time waiting for aircraft availability.

Are there any disadvantages of the MPL?
Not really, though at first glance, the implied confinement to a multi-crew cockpit seems like a restriction. But it is really more of a specialization – one that more accurately reflects the reality of today’s and tomorrow’s commercial aviation world.

A couple of points for those who think that this ludicrous machine-minder's ticket will be an universal panacea:

1. It will be expensive to the individual as many airlines won't be interested in paying for training. Just as they aren't today.

2. The French are totally opposed to it. One of the few things (such as TGV, the Millau bridge, wine etc) to admire them for. Will they permit a 2-person aircraft to operate over their territory knowing that one pilot might only hold this Microsoft pilot's licence?

3. The FAA don't see any place for it.

4. You wouldn't even be able to take your friends flying in a Cessna 150 on a sunny afternoon without extra training.

Co pilots licence
 

It will only get going if the beancounters think it is a good idea. They are driven purely by HOW MUCH WILL IT "COST".
IS IT CHEAPER THAN WHAT WE HAVE TO DO NOW?

They often know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

Their blinkered mentality asks usually but one question: can this achieve MP licence issue cheaper. Answer, probably yes.

What they will fail to understand initially is the increase in the failure to pass line training. "Cost" this increase in the chop rate, against undertaking quality [tried and tested] which may be more expensive at the outset. It is worth its weight in gold.

The "Q" word does not feature on their balance sheet - that is the problem.

I feel sorry for the ad-initio student being talked into signing up for this by a smooth sounding sales person.

The acidic test is simply how many airlines will be prepared to fund these courses. An expensive experiment in proving a concept, as yet untested.

Think of it like a new drug [not the life or death type] without the clinical trials to prove it will work.

Do you want to be part of an experiment, when there are prefectly sound options already available. I think not.

:mad:

MPL
 

For the actual facts, check out the EATS web site which has the presentations given to the training industry in Amsterdam on Nov 7/8.

http://www.halldalemedia.co.uk/eats2005/proceedings.htm

Whatever you may think of it, the MPL WILL come and is already being supported by a number of major airlines worldwide.

2006
 

Its 2006.....

JAA is making all efforts to facilitate it, by creating a regulatory framework in JAR-FCL

Change to General Requirements, Instrument Rating, ATPL(A), Instructors, Examiners and Theoretical Knowledge Requirements

Introduction of new Subpart K – Multi-Crew Pilot Licence

Looks like LASORS will get some (more) updating..... At least pilots will leave training after MPL with a qualification that they can use and not have to fork out more on Sims as is required with the current light aicraft based fATPL.....

The big gamble with this licence is in deciding which type-rating to include. 737, A320, 767???

It is certaig airlines that have been pushing for this licence, particularly Lufthansa as they have lots of sims they can put students through. Smaller airlines are definitely not in favour as they see nobody wanting to do such a course and including something like a Dash 8 or ATR rating. However looks like the big boys are winning.

There is little doubt that the simulators can teach students the upper air work to a high standard.

The interesting part will be how they will cope in the big bad world with landing the real thing, and being sufficiently consistent in even benign conditions.

Are the visuals really that good ??

:cool:


ps. Flying the aeroplane is one thing, but just how is exposure to the real world of air traffic control going to be taught.

Level D Sims
 

Good enough for ZFTT....

RVR800

Are you the fount of all knowledge, to say that there are no disadvantages? You completely fail to address those already stated on this thread. I would certainly not like to be a passenger if my pilots never had a solid grounding in actually flying an aeroplane.

As BEagle points out this is not universally popular - it is not just people here who disagree.

I'd suggest that the aircraft the new boy (or girl) actually flies has little to do with the thing that he (or she) initially learnt to fly, unless it was very similar. To suggest that various skills learnt in a bug smasher are relevant are fantasy. Maybe more relevant in our lives is the ability to write neatly in small boxes. However, given an appropriate course, I can't see a reason as to why a zero houred person can't learn to fly an airliner from scratch. And when the brown stuff hits the rotating circular device designed for accelerating and projecting a mass of air in a certain direction would they be less well equipped to cope? I think not.

Competency based,multi-crew,CRM,TEM
 

The MPL is a radically different concept of ab-initio training and just as with any new concept, it will take time to be acknowledged as an acceptable standard of training throughout the industry. But this concept, a demand from the airline sector, was originally defined by a panel from 16 ICAO countries (including France) as well as IAOPA, IATA and IFALPA, and not from FTOs who want to make a fast buck. It is designed for the airline sponsored candidate – not the self-sponsored student. The syllabus will be defined by the FTOs but the competency training level must be equivalent to a CPL/IR with type rating, with much of the emphasis on CRM and TEM, and programs geared to individual airline operations. Like it or not, in 2 years time there may well be F/Os flying with the MPL but for those who doubt it’s validity, the first course from each FTO will be provisional and ICAO will be running proof-of-concept and risk/safety benefit programs. The proof of the pudding……..

Piltdown Man

But do you know? Are you willing to risk your life on that unproven hypothesis? On a person who has basically never been the captain of an aircraft? Integrated courses are bad enough, with the lack of true responsibility given to the pilot, but how much time would the graduate of an MPL pilot spend in command before taking command of a multi-engine jet? Or before taking over when the Captain is incapacitated due to illness?

No-one has tested this; it seems to be a response only to the demnds of the industry, not to the setting up of a course to teach real pilots.

Finally Gimli? Any answer?

Send Clowns

Not quite sure if I follow your argument here but the MPL is a co-pilot licence which includes a type rating and one assumes that if he passes this, he can fly the aircraft with the captain incapacitated.

It's the airlines who set the standards for pilots - it's the airlines who have initiated this licence and it's the airlines who will determine if this concept of training produces "real pilots".

Except that when you emerge from the MPL course with a B737 rating and find that there are no B737 jobs available, you will still have to find another bucket of money to complete a B757/A320/etc. type rating....or two buckets to complete the extra training to enable you to fly a SPA/MEP or do a FI rating.

I hear that the MPL courses must be 'sponsored' by an airline so it may be that the 'self-sponsored' option will not exist.

It's a few months old, but this thread contains some relevant stuff.

For what it's worth, everyone I have asked, either on these forums or anyone else, has given me a pretty similar answer: the cost of this license, and the fact that it will be type-specific, make it very unlikely that self-sponsored students will be using it. It's success, therefore, will depend on how many students airlines are willing to sponsor through ab-initio training in the near future - and judging by the current situation, it will be a very small minority of people.

Flopsie, you are missing Send Clown's point. Yes, this is a co-pilots license - which can then be upgraded to a full ATPL once the relevant hours requirements are met. Therefore, the captains of the future will be sitting in the left hand seat of jets with very little P1 time in their logbook. (Unless there will be a requirement for P1 time, in which case where will it come from?) Personally, I think this is a very bad thing. It may be true that the hands-on flying skills developed in a C150 aren't directly relevant to a B737, but the decision-making skills and captaincy skills surely are?

I'd also question your confidence in the airlines' ability to 'determine if this concept of training produces "real pilots".' The airlines are in the business of making money, and if they see a way of potentially cutting costs they will jump on it. They are not in the business of improving the quality of ab-initio flight training, they merely regard ab-initio flight training as an unavoidable nuisance, the cost of which should be dumped on the student if at all possible, and reduced to absolute minimum if they have to bear the cost themselves.

FFF
------------------

Great PR for the first airline to admit that its co-pilots can't even fly a Cessna 150 without extra training.

If this stupid non-licence ever comes to fruition, I shall write personally to the CEO of the airline I fly with and ask whether his airline uses real pilots or those with a Microsoft pilots licence.... If the latter, then I shall take my custom elsewhere.

Multi-crew Licence
 

May I suggest that you look at www.ainonline.com and the click on the archive search icon. Enter Multi-crew Pilot Licence and you will see an article that I wrote about twelve months ago on the subject

Flopsie

Flying an aircraft requires responsibility and decision making. I take it from your answer you didn't have to take full responsibility in difficult circumstances when you had little experience. I have had to do so - and I can tell you it is about a lot more than being able to fly the aircraft!

FFF has addressed your points with some very valid challenges.

Might I ask how you got into a 320? Integrated course and straight to jet / turboprop?

From Malcolm's article (referred to above): This is outdated and patently ridiculous. What possible use is 170 hours command time for someone who has a total time of 250 hours or less? Those hours are, by definition, unsupervised and an inefficient use of expensive airborne time. As a contrast, my initial training in the RAF, prior to starting on the C130, took 380 hours of which around 100 were command time. If I had done flying purely related to basic training plus the multi-engine stuff required prior to the C130 (leaving out the Valley Advanced Flying Training on the Hawk, and Tactical Weapons Unit on the Hunter, neither of which was relevant to my later employment), I would have had around 240 hours, with about 60 or less in command.

Time in training should be used to train, not to have pilots boring holes in the sky unsupervised. I have some issue with the proportion of simulator hours proposed for this course, but not the principle that training for potential airline pilots should be task-specific, and not tacked on to the PPL with lots of extra solo time. The MPL is a start in this direction. I doubt it will survive long in its current form without several changes, but it will provide the basis for future commercial training.

Scroggs

There are two sides to this argument

1. A training course - fATPL (£loads) that is supposed to lead to a job that cannot be undertaken without additional training - Type rating (more £ loads) - So why not train 'horses for courses' or more specifically why not train 'airline pilots in airliners'

2. 'Hands on' experience of 'real' flying for when Beagle goes on his hols and the the sh1t hit the fan at the pointy bit at the front of the aluminum tube

Which is most important? Both?

I'd imagine its a method that will based upon some evidence base that indicates its efficacy..

I suppose the argument is where you draw the line that one supposes wil come in the light of further research?

At the end of the day theres always two sometimes more guys at the front and there is always one guy with a lot of experence like Scroggs there so we can rest easy I guess.....

Just dont have the same fish supper OK guys....!

Scroggs

I disagree, and feel that a comparrison with military training is not very accurate.

As an officer you had command training, possibly before you ever reached an aircraft. In addition you had been selected for you aptitude, and trained with a view to going straight into command.

Comparing my experience in military flight training to my experience in civilian flight training (having been chopped at AFT I was still inexperienced) the civvie training is very different. The student at my civilian school (no longer in existence) was very much trained to follow a well-worn path to the test. Even after this, having more than 100 hours P1 and well over 250 hours I felt that when it came to commanding a light aircraft as an instructor or under IFR, flying to new destinations and across international borders I was having to work very hard. Had I not experienced that command time it would have been very tough indeed. I cannot see that being suddenly dumped with a multi-crew aircraft when your Captain comes down with gastroenteritis is going to be much easier!

The other problem is that line flying many jet piltos get extremely little hands-on flying. In some airlines there is no option to get more than a few minutes per flight. Those skills are going to degrade much more quickly as they become based on less experience.

The point of flight training is that initially it is not task specific; this is fortunate when the task can change so drastically. I mentioned Gimli already, but how about Sioux City? The Baghdad Airbus? Other accidents that didn't happen because the aircraft felt wrong, not because of any particular, identifiable piece of training? You are experienced enough to know how an aircraft should feel and some of the ways it feels wrong and why. This feel for flying develops rapidly over the first few hundred hours flying and is vital to both Captain and FO. An FO with only 60 hours under his belt is not going to have it!

Don't get me wrong; I don't approve of a flying training course which consists of very little real-world flying. I would far rather the balance of aircraft to simulator was much more in favour of aircraft for one major reason - fear. All pilots need to have experience of understanding that the consequences of getting it wrong are - or could be - fatal. That just does not come across in a simulator, and never will. Als, as you say, real-world skills deteriorate quickly. I would put money on there being very little pure handing time in the proposed MPL syllabus - simulators are too expensive to 'waste' on fault-free flying!

However, I dispute your contention that military pilots' training is irrelevant to the civilian system. Training for command is exactly why more time should be spent under instruction; under the current system you are expected to train yourself during your hour-building, which is at best inefficient and at worst bloody dangerous. It's rather like leaving a child to discover that a fire can burn by letting them try it rather than telling them beforehand and then supervising them when they are actually near a fire, and training them how to avoid being burned while getting all the advantages a fire offers. One of the advantages (and thus appeal to airlines) of the integrated courses now available from the major FTOs is that this flying time is structured, though, thanks to the rules, it is not used as productively as it might be.

There is a great deal of room for improvement in the system used to prepare pilots for an airline career. The MPL, however inadequate, is at least a recognition that things need to change.

Scroggs

Points well made Scroggs - I agree entirely.....

Send Clowns

One assumes that if the pilot passes a type rating course (at a reputable FTO/TRTO), this is true

Yes - this happens to very pilot on his first solo.....

You seem to be missing the point about the MPL. The present integrated course does little to educate the student about CRM - one of the major criticisms from the airlines concerning low hour ab-initio F/Os. Some FTOs are now taking steps to improve this by introducing F/O "further education" programs eg. Oxford, InterCockpit Lufthansa Flight Training. The MPL is not a command rating - it is a licence for a copilot to safely fly the aircraft in a multi crew environment in abnormal conditions - that is what the type rating part of the course is designed for. As we have found in our FTO, a pilot having flown around in a C150 for 1000 hrs as P1 does not necessarily mean that he will be a more competent F/O than a zero hour student , particularly in medium/large jets. Handling skills for these types of aircraft can be adequately learned in a sim - perhaps where the higher flight time student has the advantage is with situation awareness.

As Scroggs correctly summed up, the present method of training professional pilots for the airlines needs improvement and the MPL is the first step to achieving this whilst also satisfying the quality requirements of the operators and regulating authority.

My solution would be the current CPL without IR, but with a MEP Class Rating, followed by all the boring procedural IF in multi-pilot simulators, doing the huggy-huggy CRM and MCC stuff at the same time, then the Type Rating and IR on the appropriate type.

Basic commercial level handling skills would be retained; hours of staggering around the NDB hold in a Seneca on one engine with some Oxford Don making a science out of non-precision needle following would rightly be condemned to the rubbish bin of history.

Flopsie

The type ratingis almost entirely in a sim!

First solo is very straight-forward. Unless your instructor was criminally negligent you would not have been sent off in difficult circumstances as I specified. In fact a range of circumstances is very important too. It breeds flexibility.

I am not missing the point. I am not saying there shuold be no CRM training. I approve of the increases there, have an MCC myself and would expect company-specific training on a CRM course when I fly multi-crew.

The point you are missing is that this training has to be built on a strong foundation of a skilled pilot with a little experience behind him of both flying and making decisions in the real world. I have always criticised integrated courses for too little of this, and the MPL will be worse. I am not talking only about handling skills, but primarily skills closer to the airmanship side and others that are less easy to pin down but all instructors see developing in pilots post-PPL.

BEagle suggests an elegant compromise, although I disagree about the utility of attempting NDB holds. It drastically increases the ability of a pilot to think and fly at the same time, and tests such skill.

While the details of the ratio of sim to actual flying can be debated, it's a simple fact that 1000 hours in a Cessna 150 really doesn't count for much when it comes to commanding an airliner.

I know from experience that selected ab-initio low hours guys/gals perform very well in the airline environment and go on to make very good commanders in the minimum time.

The point about this new licence is that it enables F/O's to start gaining experience in the two crew cockpit from the start - and that's invaluable. And flying a transport jet is a world away from a light single or twin.

Send Clowns, with all due respect - you talk about people 'feeling' the aircraft - well who is going to be in a better position to do this? Obviously the person who's spent more time flying that aircraft! (Or sim). 1000 take-offs in a Cessna aren't going to tell you how your 737 should feel after take-off.

Beagle makes a good point about the NDB by the way, and I fully agree with him - the point is, in the real world, it's just not done that way. In fact, people need to be re-taught how to actually use the thing in a practical way!

Incoming.:}

Three years ago I was involved in the TR course of a batch of the latest wunder kids straight out of flying college flying the latest wunder jet. They were all the latest students of the JAR CPL course in which the flying content had been reduced to about 150 hours from approx over two hundred, and the difference replaced with 50 hours in a 737 simulator, which also covered the CRM/MCC requirement.

They were all highly intelligent, highly motivated young men and women and by the end of the course could operate to the airline SOP, deal with multiple failures and hand fly the aircraft in IMC as well as any Pilot with thousands of hours.

During the course one of the interesting problems that emerged was after flying an immaculate ILS under IMC when they became visual at 200/300/500ft the fun would start. I never came across one who could stay on the centre line, on the glide path and fly approx at Vref, most of the deviations were so extreme that the outcome in the real aircraft would have been a spectacular fireball.

A lot of time was spent correcting what are basic flying skill errors. The last session on the course was an introduction to circuit work in preparation for the base training detail in the real aircraft. Again the sessions proved that if the circuit was standard, once they had been taught how to fly straight and level and control an approach visually, a reasonable standard could be reached, however the fun would start again when say extending downwind or flying a larger circuit.

Never under estimate the value of poleing an aerolpane around the sky, especially when one is not under the eagle eye of the instructor, some of the best lessons were learnt on my own or with a fellow cadet flying mutual. Also told to me by my first instructor 'Never under estimate the value of the the two lessons on a flying course that get glanced over, effect of controls part 1 and 2'.

As for the NDB I've just looked in me logbook, 14 in the last year, in some very odd places and still flown in almost exactly the same way I was taught at Perth nearly 30 years ago.

For this old guffer SC is pretty much spot on.

Thanks Wrongstuff.

Maximum

No-one spends 1000 hours poling a Cessna! Everyone who gets those sorts of hours before flying jets (and I humbly submit my case - 950 hours fixed-wing) has some sort of a job to do in the aircraft. In that job he learns not just command skills but often crew co-operation - either as an instructor (who is monitoring pilot for a lot of time, and it becomes instinctive to point out important errors, and take over in extremis but not too early) or in small multi-crew aircraft. Instructors also learn a lot of airmanship, which is more than half of flying any aircraft. They also learn very good handling techniques (apply to all aircraft), as they teach them every day.

However much of that applies to even the first 300 hours - massive amounts are learnt, some type or class-specific, much that is generally applicable. Some can be learnt on a synthetic training device, some cannot. Some cannot be learnt (safely) in a real aircraft, so FNPTs/sims are required.

Thank you for the unintended compliment, but I don't believe I warrant it. Unless I am a really good instinctive pilot then poling a light aircraft really does allow you to feel the flight of a larg one. I did my MCC course as a very current PPL instructor. I was flying a Lockheed Tristar sim together with a CPL/IR/FI(R) holder on 300 hours who wasn't flying regularly. Our instructor assessed that we both did well at the course, better than he would expect on a type-rating course at that level (he was experienced in the airline training environment). I also flew better than my partner (my partner's assessment, although I could see it too), although by the best assessment I could make there was little difference in native ability, as rates of improvement were comparable. I was just far more experienced in flying, or am a better natural aviator than even I, an egotistical pilot, would ever think.

Note that 900 hours, mostly in a PA-28 will not tell me how a Partenavia will feel after take-off either. However because of my experience in other aircraft I know how to get a feel for the aircraft, and very quickly it became second nature. I am not learning the direct skills of flying a 737, but I am learning the meta skills of how to learn to fly an aeroplane, which can be applied to each aircraft I try.

Its on its way anyway
 

Anyway regardless of what we all think the MPL is happening and is seen as “The Future” for airline pilot training

Indeed JAA is making all efforts to facilitate it, by creating a regulatory framework in JAR-FCL and so there will be a Change to General Requirements, Instrument Rating, ATPL(A), Instructors, Examiners and Theoretical Knowledge Requirements and an Introduction of new Subpart K – Multi-Crew Pilot Licence in Lasors

I guess the cost of sims is less prohibitive now and more real than in the past. The technological divide between the traditional six-pack display single-crew type aeroplane and the glass display automated multicrew computerised systems that make up a larger and larger percentage of airliners has resulted in a change of philosophy by some who want people to be trained on the kit they will fly.

In short its a horses for courses thing - I guess its "evidence based" as well

Will self sponsored students bipass the traditional route by lobbing a low cost carrier some cash to train them on the job in the future?

Probably yes - could be a nice income stream ...

On the subject of NDBs - areent they being withdrawn in the US and I am aware that none precision approaches are being introduced using GPS - The technology is moving very fast in this area and even Joe Bloggs in the street can for a few quid buy a GPS device that navigates to within a few feet....It's altering perceptions..... The regulatory authorities are slow to grasp some technological nettles

In my opinion the new co-pilot's licence is nothing more than an inevitable consequence of the advances in aircraft and computer technology in recent years. The days of two hairy macho men hauling a converted WW2 bomber around the skies, fighting with towering CBs while feathering a flaming Pratt and Whitney a la Ernest Gann are long gone.
It has been recognized, and rightly so, that there is very little in common between hand-Flying a Seneca single pilot IFR and Operating a modern transport jet multi crew in a highly regimented environment. It could even, and has been, argued that flying one is actually detrimental to the other. This was not, however, always so; the airline pilot of the 1930's almost certainly came from a military background. He was used to being in charge. In civilian life he flew a ponderous, sub-sonic machine with a basic autopilot and a Boy to help him. The Boy had a head full of books and a basic commercial ticket and had even demonstrated that he could bang a DC3 down at Croydon 5 times in a row without breaking anything. He was an apprentice and would spend several years learning his craft from his Captain (Captains often kept the same co-pilot for months at a time). He was "brought on" as the Captain saw fit - a landing here, a take-off there, maybe even a closely-supervised NDB approach.
The trouble with this method of instruction was that it was unregulated and was totally dependent on the teaching skills of a man who often resented having to spoon-feed an apprentice who he saw as of little or no practical help. The problem came when the apprentice saw the Captain making a mistake. Should he speak out and risk a tongue-lashing and possible curtailment of his career or keep quiet and hope that the Captain would see his error in time....? There were many accidents that could have been avoided if the crew had worked as a team.
Fast forward to today. Transport aircraft are now highly automated multi-million dollar pieces of kit. The sky they fly in is increasingly crowded, particularly around the major airports and the airlines run on miniscule margins, relying on high turnover to generate the necessary cash to stay afloat. In this compo-mad World we live in, even one crash is likely to be enough to put an airline out of business. A computer will fly a modern jet far more efficiently than any human but the public still like to think that there is a man who will take control if things go wrong. CRM has massively reduced the instances of avoidable accidents and low houred pilots now enter service rated on type and are the product of a regimented training process; two complete strangers can now fly as a team from the minute they meet and seamlessly change to a new partner if required.
The odds of a co-pilot actually having to take manual control of a modern jet transport aircraft in an emergency are just about nil. The job requires different skills to those of 50 years ago but the basic training format has remained much the same. The present system is still relevant to those pilots who wish to fly single pilot air taxi in a piston twin although this market has seen a large decline with the advent of the Low Cost Carrier. As far as I am aware, commercial pilots of the future will have to make a choice at the outset of their training: Airline or GA. The training road post-PPL will fork and the two roads will not meet. It is likely that only airline-sponsored candidates will fly airliners as it just won't be worth the risk for a self-sponsored student to invest in a co-pilots licence.
The GA route will still be there but without 700 hours TT minimum it is unlikely that a newly-qualified pilot will find a wage-paying job. The co-pilot's licence is coming - it suits the airlines for all the obvious reasons, but it will take several years before it is unilaterally implemented. In the meantime the airlines still need to fill those right hand seats..............

aprune

Excellent, I particularly liked the bit about some hairy @rse hauling converted bombers around the sky

The assumption that all these guys will be sponsored is a big one. The supply demand relationship dictates in my view that there will be big incentives for airline "sponsored" MPLs to bung some £cash (loads) to the "sponsor"... as they do now for their type rating training..

Maybe MOL will not see the MPL as a potential revenue stream and sponsor candidates ... you never know :D

Apruneuk, I'm not sure what your experience is, but some of your statements suggest that you don't have a full grasp of the current airline pilot situation, and your colourful description of the past, while entertaining, is, I think, a little overdone. In any case, what the airline scene of the 1930s has to do with the current training scenario, even pre-MPL, I fail to understand!
- Transport aircraft have been highly-automated, multi-million dollar pices of kit for several years. Even the B747 Classics I used to fly (dating from around 1980) were highly-automated, multi-million dollar pieces of kit. This is not a new thing!

- The sky is indeed increasingly crowded, but it is far less hazardous than it used to be. Airlines do work on relatively small margins, but I can't think of one that has collapsed as the result of a single accident.

- CRM has made an incremental improvement in safety, but it has not 'massively reduced the instances of avoidable accidents'. It is an important weapon in the overall pursuit of safety, not the only one.

- The public is absolutely right to expect there to be a man at the controls when things go wrong. Computers do not fly 'more efficiently' than people; what they do is offload pilots so that their capacity for decision-making is increased. Even my brand-new A340-600 can't make decisions and is terrible at prioritising. That's one of the reasons we do CRM and MCC - how could CRM make a difference if the computers can do it all?

- The odds of a co-pilot having to fly the aircraft in an emergency are actually quite high; there are several emergency scenarios in which hand-flying of the aircraft is required and, to allow the captain to have the time and capacity to think, it is the first officer who gets the job every time.

You are right that airline training should follow a different route from an early stage. As in military flying, the PPL syllabus is irrelevant from pretty much right after first solo, and there's no reason why the commercial syallabus shouldn't diverge at that point also. However, I see no indication that this syllabus will be picked up and paid for by the industry; it seems to me that it will be an expensive speculative qualification for most, just as it is now.

Scroggs

apruneuk ...

I would keep my lofty put downs of single pilot seneca ops to myself until I actually had learned how to fly either a Seneca or an airliner if I was you.

I trust you are aware that outside this strange little bubble called Europe, it is still all but impossible to get onto the one without having done several years in the other. Try and take your poetic little historical analysis to the recruiting personnel at United Airlines or Qantas and explain why they should really give you a job, and watch them hit the floor laughing before they explain that you can't in fact even submit a CV to them without several thousand hours of the kind of flying you've just so derided.

In fact I would argue that the only reason circumstances are different here, is the fact that due to geological and economic oddities of Europe there just isn't enough of a viable air force or G.A. industry to provide the airlines with all the pilots they need. Hence they've had to come up with other kinds of schemes (like the integrated course and now this new multi pilot licence thing) to make the travelling public feel comfy and cushion the newly qualified FO from reality for their first thousand hours or so, until they've actually learned their trade.

SkyToddler

I think you have misunderstood me. I actually happen to agree with you and was not trying to put down single pilot IFR at all. I am merely playing Devil's Advocate in this case and trying to show my take on the thinking behind the new co-pilot's licence.
I have flown in the States (and hold a FAA CPL/ME IR as well as a JAA CPL. I am also a pilot examiner for the British Parachute Association so do know a little bit about "flying" a plane) and have every respect for their system. You can't buy experience after all. However, the powers that be in JAR Land seem to have decided that a small number of hours of relevant training and a comprehensive course of groundschool is as effective/safe as a large number of hours of varied flying and slightly less theory (although many American pilots do take an Aeronautical Science degree while training for the CPL which is almost certainly more thorough and relevant than our scatter-gun selection of 14 exams loosely based around aviation. The copilot's licence as I see it is merely an attempt at making the present minimum hour to airline syllabus more relevant to airline flying than it currently is. As it stands it is a one size fits all course that doesn't adequately prepare a pilot for either airline flying or GA (in my opinion).
Prior to the "frozen ATPL" our route to the airlines was similar to that in the States: PPL/Instructor/Regional/Airline. I like that and always have. However there is another school of thought and it currently prevails in the JAA airline World. Only time will tell which is safer.